Opinion

No, the sky isn’t falling: A level-headed guide to McCutcheon v. FEC

Trevor Burrus Research Fellow, Cato Institute
Font Size:

Today the Supreme Court decided McCutcheon v. FEC and struck down the aggregate contribution limits for contributions in federal elections. Over the course of the next few weeks, if not years, there will be a lot of hyperbolic claims about how the case is another nail in the coffin of our democracy. It will be paired with Citizens United as a demonstration that the Roberts Court is doggedly trying to sell our country to the highest bidder.

In reality, the decision is a principled interpretation of the First Amendment that would have garnered wide support from many on the left just 30 years ago. What is truly frightening about the decision is that the four dissenting justices are promoting a vision of the First Amendment that is absolutely incompatible with limited government and free speech.

First, a little background. Since the mid-’70s, campaign finance law has been based on the core distinction between contributions and expenditures. Contributions go to candidates directly whereas expenditures are spent independently of candidates. In the seminal case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Court held that the government has a more compelling interest in regulating and limiting contributions than expenditures because of the threat of quid pro quo corruption, that is, the one-for-one exchange of contributions for political favors. In fact, preventing quid pro quo corruption is essentially the entire reason we have thousands of pages of campaign finance laws and regulations.

The Buckley decision thus upheld the limit on contributions to candidates, the so-called base limit, which is now $2,600. But there is another limit on contributions, the so-called aggregate limit, limiting the total amount that an individual can give to all candidates and political committees to which he contributes.

In the most basic sense, the question the Court was asked in McCutcheon was whether the aggregate contribution limit coupled with the individual contribution limit helps prevent quid pro quo corruption or whether it unjustifiably limits political speech. In the 2011-2012 election cycle, the plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, had already contributed $33,088 to 16 candidates, but he wanted to contribute $1,776 to 12 more candidates, which would have pushed him over the aggregate limit. Given that every one of his contributions was below the individual limit, was it preventing any quid pro quo corruption to allow him to give $1,776 to eight more candidates, but not nine, 12, or 200? The obvious answer to that question seems to be “no,” and it is the answer that five of the nine justices gave, thus striking down the limit.

Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion goes through the stated justifications for the law and examines them in light of two core First Amendment doctrines: First, that the government needs a compelling interest to regulate political speech. In campaign finance law, that interest is preventing quid pro quo corruption. Second, in order to withstand constitutional scrutiny, the law must not only actually go toward preventing quid pro quo corruption, but it must also be narrowly drawn to serve that purpose. Narrow tailoring, as that is called, ensures that the government isn’t prohibiting a lot of legitimate speech in the name of combating quid pro quo corruption.

Imagine a park where people went to hand out political pamphlets. Due to the amount of paper, littering becomes a problem, and in order to combat littering the government outlaws all political pamphleteering in the park. Such a law would be struck down as unconstitutional because it addressed a narrow and compelling problem, littering, with a legal sledgehammer that prohibits legitimate and important political speech. The First Amendment requires a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. This goes double for political speech.

The aggregate limit law clearly failed this test for reasons expertly explained by Roberts. The government argued that the aggregate limits were important to forestall circumvention of the base limits. But the scenarios in which such circumvention could occur are improbable or are currently illegal under campaign finance laws. Roberts simply reaffirmed the core principle that, like littering in the park, the government is obliged to tackle the problem as narrowly as possible and is not permitted to ban a significant amount of political speech based on fanciful hypotheticals.

And although this seems like a relatively simple conclusion, four justices disagreed because they have a fundamentally different view of the First Amendment as something that empowers government action rather than limits it. The free marketplace of ideas is now just another marketplace that the left feels it has the duty to regulate in the name of “fairness.”

Writing in dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg, argued that a new version of “corruption,” that is, the corruption of the marketplace of ideas, should become part of the Court’s jurisprudence. In that version of corruption, the government is affirmatively in charge of making sure “a few large donations” don’t “drown out the voice of the many.”

While this may sound initially attractive, a moment’s thought makes it clear that this view is untenable. Elected officials cannot be trusted to fairly regulate the process upon which their jobs depend and the government could have no meaningful principle to determine how loud someone should be allowed to speak or even what the “voice of the many” is saying. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “the degree to which speech is protected cannot turn on a legislative or judicial determination that particular speech is useful to the democratic process.”

The frightening thing about McCutcheon is that a near-majority of the Court holds this view that turns the First Amendment on its head. If we don’t limit the doctrine of corruption to actual candidates, if we empower the government to regulate a “corrupt” marketplace of ideas, then there is no reason to limit it to elections. The subscription base of the New York Times is certainly too large, perhaps we should limit how many copies can be printed? And, Oprah, well she is certainly too influential, so while we’ll allow her to speak privately, we’ll make it illegal for her to use her network for political speech.

Campaign finance law may be complex, but what’s at stake is simple. It is too bad that four justices don’t seem to understand this.

PREMIUM ARTICLE: Subscribe To Keep Reading

Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!

Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!
Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!

Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!
Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!

Sign Up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!
Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!
Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!
BENEFITS READERS PASS PATRIOTS FOUNDERS
Daily and Breaking Newsletters
Daily Caller Shows
Ad Free Experience
Exclusive Articles
Custom Newsletters
Editor Daily Rundown
Behind The Scenes Coverage
Award Winning Documentaries
Patriot War Room
Patriot Live Chat
Exclusive Events
Gold Membership Card
Tucker Mug

What does Founders Club include?

Tucker Mug and Membership Card
Founders

Readers,

Instead of sucking up to the political and corporate powers that dominate America, The Daily Caller is fighting for you — our readers. We humbly ask you to consider joining us in this fight.

Now that millions of readers are rejecting the increasingly biased and even corrupt corporate media and joining us daily, there are powerful forces lined up to stop us: the old guard of the news media hopes to marginalize us; the big corporate ad agencies want to deprive us of revenue and put us out of business; senators threaten to have our reporters arrested for asking simple questions; the big tech platforms want to limit our ability to communicate with you; and the political party establishments feel threatened by our independence.

We don't complain -- we can't stand complainers -- but we do call it how we see it. We have a fight on our hands, and it's intense. We need your help to smash through the big tech, big media and big government blockade.

We're the insurgent outsiders for a reason: our deep-dive investigations hold the powerful to account. Our original videos undermine their narratives on a daily basis. Even our insistence on having fun infuriates them -- because we won’t bend the knee to political correctness.

One reason we stand apart is because we are not afraid to say we love America. We love her with every fiber of our being, and we think she's worth saving from today’s craziness.

Help us save her.

A second reason we stand out is the sheer number of honest responsible reporters we have helped train. We have trained so many solid reporters that they now hold prominent positions at publications across the political spectrum. Hear a rare reasonable voice at a place like CNN? There’s a good chance they were trained at Daily Caller. Same goes for the numerous Daily Caller alumni dominating the news coverage at outlets such as Fox News, Newsmax, Daily Wire and many others.

Simply put, America needs solid reporters fighting to tell the truth or we will never have honest elections or a fair system. We are working tirelessly to make that happen and we are making a difference.

Since 2010, The Daily Caller has grown immensely. We're in the halls of Congress. We're in the Oval Office. And we're in up to 20 million homes every single month. That's 20 million Americans like you who are impossible to ignore.

We can overcome the forces lined up against all of us. This is an important mission but we can’t do it unless you — the everyday Americans forgotten by the establishment — have our back.

Please consider becoming a Daily Caller Patriot today, and help us keep doing work that holds politicians, corporations and other leaders accountable. Help us thumb our noses at political correctness. Help us train a new generation of news reporters who will actually tell the truth. And help us remind Americans everywhere that there are millions of us who remain clear-eyed about our country's greatness.

In return for membership, Daily Caller Patriots will be able to read The Daily Caller without any of the ads that we have long used to support our mission. We know the ads drive you crazy. They drive us crazy too. But we need revenue to keep the fight going. If you join us, we will cut out the ads for you and put every Lincoln-headed cent we earn into amplifying our voice, training even more solid reporters, and giving you the ad-free experience and lightning fast website you deserve.

Patriots will also be eligible for Patriots Only content, newsletters, chats and live events with our reporters and editors. It's simple: welcome us into your lives, and we'll welcome you into ours.

We can save America together.

Become a Daily Caller Patriot today.

Signature

Neil Patel